Do you have some more to say about the Johnson story? Here's your chance
From the number of comments I continue to get on the Johnson post from last week, it's obvious you all still have a lot to say on this topic. So maybe we should take it apart piece by piece starting with my good friend Anonymous' point about public vs. private life. I called Johnson's action stupid. He called it stupid. Some of you took offense to that but the question remains: Must a person in Johnson's position — an elected official — sacrifice the right to certain private behaviors if he or she wants to pursue a life of public service? If corporations and entertainment enterprises can include morals clauses in employee contracts, why can't the public, so to speak? Or does every American have absolute right to privacy in behavior that is completely legal?
(Next, we'll take on how the gay aspect affected the story and Times-Dispatch's role in all this, but for now, one thing at a time...)